Why the end of the health emergency risks causing migration “chaos” at the southern border

Joe Biden conceded, the situation is likely to be “chaotic for a while”. At 11:59 p.m., the end of the state of health emergency in place since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, which had allowed the Trump administration to lock down the southern border, risks causing an unprecedented influx of hundreds of thousands of migrants hoping to obtain asylum in the United States. The Biden administration has imposed new restrictions, but these are likely to have limited impact in the short term. Only an in-depth reform of immigration in Congress could change the situation, but nothing is likely to change with the campaign which is already in full swing for the presidential election of November 2024. In the immediate future, the Federal State has mobilized “more of 24,000 agents and police forces” at the border, in addition to 4,000 soldiers.

What is “title 42”, and what changes from Friday?

With 70% of the American population vaccinated against Covid-19, and less than 200 daily deaths, compared to more than 3,000 at the peak of the pandemic, the health emergency will be lifted this May 11 at 11:59 p.m. (Washington time). With it, it is also the end of “Title 42”, a measure put in place by Donald Trump to turn back all migrants at the border, including asylum seekers, and to immediately expel those who have succeeded in illegally enter the United States.

In three years, it has been used 2.8 million times. The previous system, dubbed by its Republican critics “catch and release”, required authorities who arrested an asylum seeker to release him until he was brought before a judge, which could take more than five years. with a saturated system.

What steps have Joe Biden taken?

A hot topic, the situation at the border weighs down – with inflation – Joe Biden in view of the 2024 presidential election. The Democrat is trying to find a happy medium between firmness and humanity, with new measures to restrict requests for asylum without returning to decried policies such as the separation of families. His administration relies on three approaches:

  • Migrants transiting through another country such as Mexico must first seek asylum in that country before being able to do so in the United States, under penalty of being deported. The Trump administration had tried a similar, stricter approach, which had been rejected by American justice, and we risk seeing a similar legal battle.
  • Migrants must apply for asylum before crossing the border through the CBP One app. But smartphones, wifi and electricity are a luxury for people fleeing violence and poverty, and the app is often saturated.
  • A new mechanism allowing you to come legally provided you have an American citizen as a financial guarantor has been put in place, with the first centers in Colombia and Guatemala.

How many migrants are massed at the border?

In total, more than 660,000 migrants are waiting in Mexico, according to a US Department of Homeland Security estimate obtained by THE New York Times. They come mainly from Latin America (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela) but also from the rest of the world (Ukraine, Russia, Afghanistan, Syria).

Currently, more than 10,000 people cross the border illegally every day, especially along the Rio Grande. Thousands are becoming homeless in frontier towns like El Paso, Texas.

What is the long term solution?

The last in-depth immigration reform dates back to 1986, under Ronald Reagan. Since then, every president has racked his brains over this issue, with a divided and paralyzed Congress. George W. Bush came close but his efforts were torpedoed by his camp in 2007 in the Senate, where 60 out of 100 votes are needed.

Barack Obama promised a lot, but he favored health reform when he had a large majority and then failed in 2013 against the Republicans and the Tea Party in the House. Since then, divisions have deepened, and immigration will be one of the main issues in the presidential election. Without anyone really being able to rally around a compromise.


source site